Religion and the Military

[kbfc]

This has gotten far enough off-topic in the god-image thread, and it's a good enough line of discussion, that I think it's worth its own thread.

I pointed this out in the other thread, but it was apparently ignored: it is not enough that a position be profitable for it to be correct. It must be the MOST profitable. This is basic Theory of Poker stuff. Religious belief and activities at every level of the military, from front-line grunts to board-room generals, might very well have some sort of performance benefit. This is NOT enough to justify it. I'm not saying that it is definitely not justifiable, just that this reason is not good enough.

As far as top tacticians and their religion, this could very well point to another conclusion aside from "religion, at minimum, is a slight positive in the warroom," namely: "our top military tacticians, if they happen to be truly religious, might not be as good as you think they are."

It is possible that plenty of people who dwarf these folks in terms of intelligence and tactical ability don't consider war-planning as a worthwhile outlet for their talents. As David argues an inverse correlation between intelligence and religious belief (especially pronounced at the upper extremes), the same could be possible for intelligence and taste for war.

The point of all of this is not that I'm necessarily arguing these alternatives. I'm noting that they have been completely ignored by those who try to put forth arguments in favor of religion in the military. There are some other examples of fallacies in these discussions that I have in mind, but these 2 above should be enough for now.

[RJT]

Without personally knowing which is the more +EV for a military situation, I would rely on those that do have such experience. And/or I would rely on geniuses who have studied the issue to the same degree. (Do I need to cite my source for this methodology?)

It seems to me that the only folk who fit this criteria on this forum are people of Faith. So, we need to either rely on their opinion or look elsewhere than on this forum. That is, unless there are any atheists on board who have not disclosed any military background or any geniuses who have studied the issue.

I would not be surprised to find that Faith is indeed the more +EV in a military situation as Bigdaddy suggests. (Perhaps, I feel this way because of his already stated opinion and he seems to have both the intelligence and the experience.)

But, I am willing to hear arguments from those who might have ideas that seem logical and worthwhile to test or further investigate. Let’s see what replies you get and go from there.

The majority of Americans are Christian (or profess to be), and thus it is not a surpise that there are a significant number of Christians in the military. Plus, areas like the Midwest and South (probably more Christian in geberal) are overrepresented in the military. All in all, I don't think it matters much.

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
I pointed this out in the other thread, but it was apparently ignored: it is not enough that a position be profitable for it to be correct. It must be the MOST profitable. This is basic Theory of Poker stuff. Religious belief and activities at every level of the military, from front-line grunts to board-room generals, might very well have some sort of performance benefit. This is NOT enough to justify it. I'm not saying that it is definitely not justifiable, just that this reason is not good enough.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'd venture most chuch-attending members of the military don't practice their faith to be better Soldiers. Many (like myself) regard their Faith as its own reward. What I'm saying instead is that among the military "faithful" improved performance is an ancillary, if unintended, benefit.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as top tacticians and their religion, this could very well point to another conclusion aside from "religion, at minimum, is a slight positive in the warroom," namely: "our top military tacticians, if they happen to be truly religious, might not be as good as you think they are."


[/ QUOTE ]

I think our results in various military contests over the last 100 years that America was truly a global superpower speak for themselves.

[ QUOTE ]
It is possible that plenty of people who dwarf these folks in terms of intelligence and tactical ability don't consider war-planning as a worthwhile outlet for their talents. As David argues an inverse correlation between intelligence and religious belief (especially pronounced at the upper extremes), the same could be possible for intelligence and taste for war.


[/ QUOTE ]

Among the colleges I was accepted to included USMA, the Naval Academy, Pitt, Penn State, and Notre Dame. I'm confident that I would have been accepted to several Ivy League places if I had the inclination. It happened that the Academy offered me the dual attraction of educational excellence and service to the nation. All that said, I was lucky to be in maybe the top 50% intelligence wise in my USMA class. My class produced four Rhodes Scholars. There were plenty of sickeningly smart people that I was humbled to be in the same classroom with. You should take comfort that many of the nation's most talented minds are on point leading its defense.

[ QUOTE ]

I think our results in various military contests over the last 100 years that America was truly a global superpower speak for themselves.


[/ QUOTE ]

Uh? You mean against other christians, like germany, during ww2, but not against non-christian like during the vietnam war.

Honestly, methinks the concept of faith and warmongering or waging, have little to do with each other... then again I am not a believer.

[purnell]

Having thought about it for a couple days now, and I think my original reaction was a bit over the top (thank you mr obvious).

The level of discipline required to become a US military officer is extremely high. I have little doubt that these men and women are able to keep their faith from unduly influencing their decisions.

I know approximately nothing about military strategy, and it does not interest me, so I will happily leave it to the experts.

Ahem. I think I was wrong, so I'm changing my mind.

[kbfc]

None of this is what my post was about. I'm not interested in debating military tactics, or even rating other tacticians. My post was 100% targeted toward the logical fallacies present in your argument in the other thread. These are logical fallacies that I've seen repeated in almost every thread today, by multiple posters, so it's worth mentioning.

It is clear in a sentence like this:

"I think our results in various military contests over the last 100 years that America was truly a global superpower speak for themselves."

...that there is still work to be done.

[ QUOTE ]
Having thought about it for a couple days now, and I think my original reaction was a bit over the top (thank you mr obvious).

The level of discipline required to become a US military officer is extremely high. I have little doubt that these men and women are able to keep their faith from unduly influencing their decisions.

I know approximately nothing about military strategy, and it does not interest me, so I will happily leave it to the experts.

Ahem. I think I was wrong, so I'm changing my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, I was in the army, and I've met hundreds of officers, and gotten to know some of them very personally. I wouldnt be so sure that it's hard.

But holy crap, someone on the forum that can admit they werent right about something.

CRAZY.

[Darryl_P]

The reason I would prefer a religious military over a non-religious one is that religion has been a cohesive power in history, probably more so than anything else.

People of the same religion trust each other more and automatically assume the other shares the same core values. You may argue that they *shouldn't* trust each other any more because of this or that logical reason, but the simple fact that they *do* is enough to make that situation desirable over one in which there is a lower level of trust among the ranks.

Even in civil life I've noticed that people of the same religious belief tend to paddle in the same direction. Atheists are more likely to throw up fluff balls designed to make you question what you believe while religious people tend to strengthen one another in their beliefs.

My point is not that fluff balls can't be good, only that cohesion and belief-strengthening are better when there is an important, risky, difficult, collective task at hand as there often is in the military.

[kbfc]

I went back and reread my post just to make sure my language isn't vague or misleading. It is not. So I ask:

Why is everyone completely missing the point of this post?